On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:

I wonder whether we should actually demand that both mapping types are disjoint. While both mapping types do similar things, they implement different interfaces. With both types not being disjoint, user code would have no way to differentiate between both mapping types although they have to be plugged into different procedures.

On reflection, I agree that they should be disjoint. Perhaps it would be good to remove (srfi 142 hash) from the SRFI altogether, and leave it to another SRFI. My (incomplete) implementation doesn't depend in any way on yours, so I would be fine with that, and the SRFI could be very short, just listing the procedures and saying they are semantically equivalent to their SRFI 142 counterparts. In that case I would want the procedures to have different names, hashmapping-* or what not.

John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org

There is no real going back. Though I may come to the Shire, it will

not seem the same; for I shall not be the same. I am wounded with

knife, sting, and tooth, and a long burden. Where shall I find rest?

--Frodo